From: rgroff-AT-yorku.ca
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 20:54:24 -0400
Subject: BHA: One last try


Hi all,

What about this (and then I really will be done):  if the concept/model of a
transcendental argument is widely understood to be nothing other than that of an
immanent critique of a given position, then why didn't RB respond to Callinicos
by saying: "But Alex my man!  You've introduced a bizarre definition of the
concept of a transcendental argument; surely you know that no one in the
discipline other than Ruth Groff [:-)] understands the concept in such a way!? 
Here, let me correct you regarding what the standard conception is."

But no.  Instead (Why?  Because EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS WHAT TRANSCENDENTAL
ARGUMENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AND DO, ACCORDING TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THEM!!!)
-- instead he responds by suggesting that the standard concept/model is absurd,
and that he has re-conceived it in a potentially interesting way.  

Maintaining that his interesting take is in fact nothing other than the
accepted, orthodox definition seems ... well... it's not where or how I myself
would intervene if I wanted to focus on the merits of what Bhaskar said to AC. 
(I hadn't happened to have had that focus in my original post, which was in part
a critical one, but I certainly could have.)

Okay; now I really am spent.

r. 


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---